| Revision as of 07:39, 21 April 2009 edit207.237.33.36 (talk) →RFCs← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:43, 21 April 2009 edit undoDaedalus969 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,809 edits →How dare you: pull this shit? You wanted to ban him, so shove itNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| :I have no intention of replying to you. First , then when you AGREE there should be no reverts when moving blatant discussions to the discussion page, you pull this shtick with an accusation that I wish to punish Collect? You need to look at ALL my comments to RFC discussion before taking your attitude to my page. ] (]) 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | :I have no intention of replying to you. First , then when you AGREE there should be no reverts when moving blatant discussions to the discussion page, you pull this shtick with an accusation that I wish to punish Collect? You need to look at ALL my comments to RFC discussion before taking your attitude to my page. ] (]) 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, you certainly appear to be in the same boat, '''after all, if was ''you'' who wished to ban him from wikipedia'''. Do tell me how that is in accusation, when it is as clear as day what your motives are. You accused me of canvassing, again, '''''DO BOTHER TO GO AND READ THE POLICY YOU'RE BASELESSLY ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING'''''. Your accusations are without merit. I wished assistance from an uninvolved party, so I suggest you take back your personal attack, or stay the fuck off my page if all you're going to do is throw around baseless accusations of me breaking policy when I am clearly not.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 07:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:43, 21 April 2009
RFCs
I have removed a particular comment of yours, as seen here: I disagree with the idea that "Punishing him for those violations at this point is ridiculous; it is water under the bridge." 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC), as those subsections are for users who endorse the view. It is not to be used to discuss the view. If you want to discuss the view, please go to the talk page.— Dædαlus 12:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I'm confused...Though I moved my comment to the discussion page where you suggested, isn't this edit also a "discussion" to be moved to discussion page? Please advise. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure on the edit you noted, so I made a note requesting that they move the discussion to the discussion page.— Dædαlus 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Considering your comments in this vein under "How Dare You" below, I am restoring my comments. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
confusion
i had to correct collect on this same point... the "newbie" you think was me was not. "newbie" is a different person. i had a separate complaint against collect that was occurring at the same time under my name. i have had a[REDACTED] account since way before then. i was only a 'rookie' to the process of reporting somebody. Brendan19 (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Collect/z
The earliest version ] may be a truer reflection of intent than the current April/2009 version. Much conversation took place (not sure where) between many editors and administrators as to the validity and incendiary quality of this "humour page". The essay was altered and softened to gain reluctant support. Even in the face of many critics the author showed remarkable inflexibility. I recall claims of satire and sarcasm and irony as reasons given for its existence. I also recall President Nixons comment that he was not a crook.--Buster7 (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Move to close
Do not archive that again plz. If you'd posted the whole thing you'd see the last little bit: A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor. Soxwon (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow
You've became quite an active editor in the last month or so since the last time I saw edits by you. If you are still editing without an account after almost 200 edits you're likely doing so by choice, so if you ever want to do something that requires an account (such as moving an article or creating a new page, e.g. a sandbox or a discussion page), feel free to drop me a line. Dreaded Walrus 04:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing
I think you need to look at the diffs again. My first contact with Jim was enquiring if a Proposal to close was indeed proper and he answered yes and said he agreed. He had already been active in the RfC previously so that was hardly canvassing. And again with Daedalus you'll notice I didn't have any contact with him until AFTER he had made his position clear (which would make sense if you read what I then posted). And finally with Lady of Shallot, I don't think I expressed myself clearly and that I wanted her to look not at the article's votes but at the content and whether the personal attacks merited the article being closed. She has, I've found, almost always been neutral. As for Barney Frank, you'd be wise not to pull that kind of stunt again since the disagreement and not solely on me. Soxwon (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Propsoal
No, you won't. In case you didn't bother to read, both me and IH opposed your proposal. If you do any such thing I shall revert you.— Dædαlus 07:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, I read something wrong.— Dædαlus 07:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have replied on your userpage. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- What you're trying to do is appreciated, but you do not have a consensus to remove or refactor another person's comments where there is little to nothing wrong with them in the view of others. I suggest you continue working on the talk page towards a consensus and refrain from removing it until a direct consensus is reached to remove it. Silence does not mean consent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I have replied on your userpage. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
Didn't mean to come off with such rudeness, I'm not being as picky as I should be with my word choice tonight :(. I also shouldn't expect you to know this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Don%27t_template_the_regulars. Soxwon (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology. However, my point remains the same...my use of an incorrect template won't make my understanding of policy any less correct. Also, you should know that though I do not have an account and this is my first time in addressing a User-RFC, I am hardly the noob. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon, however, what I was getting at was that templating the regulars creastes resentment. Perhaps a nice personal note would go over better. :) Soxwon (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could glance above to the section where he first 3RR'd me...after my second revert on an issue which was already covered in an RFC I have been following for 4 days, while he's just shown his face and can hardly be expected to have reviewed the whole situation. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon, however, what I was getting at was that templating the regulars creastes resentment. Perhaps a nice personal note would go over better. :) Soxwon (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
How dare you
Appalling canvass? Do all of us a favor and take the time to read all the relevant material instead of making bad faith accusations just because you're one of those who wishes to punish collect. I asked for the assistance of a non-involved admin in regards to the matter, in case you didn't bother to read WP:CANVASS, that is in regards to asking that those who are involved in some way contribute. That was hardly the case with me and Gogo, so I suggest you take back your insult, now. It is a PA as it is completely without base. By the way, you never had consensus for the move. You had two uninvolved editors agree on one thing, that is hardly consensus.— Dædαlus 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no intention of replying to you. First this, then when you AGREE there should be no reverts when moving blatant discussions to the discussion page, you pull this shtick with an accusation that I wish to punish Collect? You need to look at ALL my comments to RFC discussion before taking your attitude to my page. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you certainly appear to be in the same boat, after all, if was you who wished to ban him from wikipedia. Do tell me how that is in accusation, when it is as clear as day what your motives are. You accused me of canvassing, again, DO BOTHER TO GO AND READ THE POLICY YOU'RE BASELESSLY ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING. Your accusations are without merit. I wished assistance from an uninvolved party, so I suggest you take back your personal attack, or stay the fuck off my page if all you're going to do is throw around baseless accusations of me breaking policy when I am clearly not.— Dædαlus 07:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)